1. Victor can be convicted of attempted murder. Because he believed in voodoo, he clearly fits the all three criteria of the Model Penal Code. Considering the three components of the definition, Victor believed in his act, went forward fully committed to perform the act, and completed the act that he thought was real.
2. Kadish is against the Harm Doctrine, which supports the reduction of the punishment if the intended effects of the the act do not occur. He believed that the Harm Doctrine cannot be reasonably supported in terms of the crime prevention or justice. The absence of the intended effects of an act do not affect the prevention of that act to any degree. Kadish would have used this first principle to point out that Victor's belief, combined with his successful procedure that he believed in, are enough to convict him of attempted murder. The failed results of his act do not have any bearing on the chances of preventing the act itself. The future cannot have any bearing on the past. In Vitor's world, he already committed the murder when he stuck the pins in the doll. The second principle of justice is very effective here. Excusing Vitor's malicious intentions on the basis of pure chance is completely against the principle of justice. Pure chance is applicable here because Victor completely believed that his act would work when he committed it.
3. As stated above, Kadish criticizes the Harm Doctrine on the basis that it is indefensible in crime prevention and justice. The main act of the crime is technically already committed before the results are known. In this way, crime prevention has already failed. So there should be no reduction in punishment corresponding to the result of the crime. Punishment should be reduced based on crime prevention, and not just the results we see. In this case, there wasn't any significant crime prevention. Punishment for the crime is justified. Second, it is unjustifiable to reduce punishment due to luck. This goes against the principle of justice. Kadish makes it clear that the degree to which luck takes place after the act does not have anything to do with the suspect. Rewarding the suspect with reduced punishment based on pure luck goes against the principle of justice. It is unfair to many others involved in the Harm Doctrine, past, present or future. Suspects caught in harsher punishment systems for committing the same crime or less expose the faults in this doctrine.
4. According to Kadish, we still have the Harm Doctrine because it is linked to possible faults in our own moral judgements. Kadish states that the need to punish the wrongdoers following a crime are ingrained within our moral intuitions. We feel the need for retribution as soon as a crime is committed. This need is fueled by the control our emotions can have on us. On the other hand, if the results of the crime are not as apparent before our eyes, that very same crime does not seem to be as malicious. When we do not see the catastrophe before our eyes, less emotion takes place. Then the need for retribution is much less. This is a sign that emotions might possibly be attached to the Harm Doctrine, the same emotions that might be deeply rooted in our history and culture. This leads to many questions concerning the basis of some doctrines that we rely on all the time.
Austin, that’s a well taken point when you say that the future does not have any bearing on the past, meaning that the outcome does not change the act itself, and you reinforce that point in your answer to 3. You also add a good point in 4 that we just feel more need for punishment if we see a terrible result. And you are right, it opens a number of questions. By the way, Kadish is not necessarily against the harm doctrine, but he argues that the doctrine is not rational.
ReplyDelete